"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

Damn, subby, really? Tweets have been being yanked since at leas last year... now they're doing a better thing and showing them as taken down via DMCA request. This is, IMO, a very good change in policy, and I, for one, am glad they're doing it.

"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

Copyrights should only extend to content which is not offered in digital format. The minute you put something online or in digital form on a cd or dvd you've made it so easy to pirate that you are no better than a bank which stores its cash on the street corner, expecting all of society to help you protect it from theft.

If you are a musician and you only offer live performances and vinyl records then yes I think the copyright police should help you stop the thieves.

But a person who clicked a single link shouldnt be prosecuted, its the digital equivalent of getting caught up in the hysteria of a public event......as long as your not one of the anarchists in the front rank throwing rocks at the cops.......

"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

Seems like a lot of the haha funny or deep tweets end up being plagiarized or paraphrased versions of famous shiat people have said. Regardless, I hope "copyright infringement" dies a horrible death in the gutter someday.

Where you might be confused is the doctrine that copying only a small portion of a work is a factor considered in a fair use analysis under 17 USC 107 - i.e. if a movie is 2 hours, and you copy 30 seconds for a review, you're unlikely to be found liable for copyright infringement.However, the consideration is not an absolute amount, but an amount in relation to the work as a whole. If the original work is 160 characters in length, then you can copy the entire thing, and thus this factor would actually work against you.

tl;dr: Don't just scream "fair use, motherfarkers" when you've never even read the relevant statute.

"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

Nem Wan:Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

If it's settled law, then how is it wrong precedent? ;)

But anyway, it's not that the link itself is direct infringement, but that it's contributory or induced infringement - you're intentionally directing someone else to where they can commit copyright infringement.There've been a few court cases in different ways, as well as some cases in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Not really settled either way.

Trying to hang a blanket statement like "you cannot copyright a Tweet" based on the short phrase exception ignores precedent, as well as the lack of definition of a short phrase, is both naive and misleading. For counterexample, I'd happy point to the well-under-140-character 'shortest story ever written' by Hemingway: "For sale: baby shoes. Never worn," which would certainly be covered under copyright. The key point is whether something is, as a whole, a "short phrase" rather than a creative work. Not merely that it's "short".

Trying to hang a blanket statement like "you cannot copyright a Tweet" based on the short phrase exception ignores precedent, as well as the lack of definition of a short phrase, is both naive and misleading. For counterexample, I'd happy point to the well-under-140-character 'shortest story ever written' by Hemingway: "For sale: baby shoes. Never worn," which would certainly be covered under copyright. The key point is whether something is, as a whole, a "short phrase" rather than a creative work. Not merely that it's "short".

Since it is Hemingway, that work is already in the public domain, but yeah.

Theaetetus:Nem Wan: Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

If it's settled law, then how is it wrong precedent? ;)

But anyway, it's not that the link itself is direct infringement, but that it's contributory or induced infringement - you're intentionally directing someone else to where they can commit copyright infringement.There've been a few court cases in different ways, as well as some cases in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Not really settled either way.

I can tell a bank robber where the nearest bank is, That doesn't make me guilty of robbing a bank.

Warlordtrooper:Theaetetus: Nem Wan: Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

If it's settled law, then how is it wrong precedent? ;)

But anyway, it's not that the link itself is direct infringement, but that it's contributory or induced infringement - you're intentionally directing someone else to where they can commit copyright infringement.There've been a few court cases in different ways, as well as some cases in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Not really settled either way.

I can tell a bank robber where the nearest bank is, That doesn't make me guilty of robbing a bank.

On the other hand, if you tell the bank robber where the bank is, where the guard is at what times, what the code to the safe is, how much cash they have on hand and how to avoid the dye packs, and you're telling him this with the intent that he go rob the bank, then yeah, you're going to be guilty of aiding him. You don't really think the guys who plan robberies walk away scot free because they didn't actually pull the heist, do you?

Theaetetus:Warlordtrooper: Theaetetus: Nem Wan: Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

If it's settled law, then how is it wrong precedent? ;)

But anyway, it's not that the link itself is direct infringement, but that it's contributory or induced infringement - you're intentionally directing someone else to where they can commit copyright infringement.There've been a few court cases in different ways, as well as some cases in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Not really settled either way.

I can tell a bank robber where the nearest bank is, That doesn't make me guilty of robbing a bank.

On the other hand, if you tell the bank robber where the bank is, where the guard is at what times, what the code to the safe is, how much cash they have on hand and how to avoid the dye packs, and you're telling him this with the intent that he go rob the bank, then yeah, you're going to be guilty of aiding him. You don't really think the guys who plan robberies walk away scot free because they didn't actually pull the heist, do you?

It's not always black and white like that. You can post instructions on the internet how to make a bomb. It's not illegal because you are not actually making a bomb. In fact laws that would prevent how to instructions like that tend to be defined very narrowly because otherwise they get torn down on 1st amendment grounds. In this example nobody is telling the bank robbers to rob the bank and giving them specific directions. All they are doing is saying the bank is on X street and throwing their hands in the air saying "what you do after that is none of my business".

Warlordtrooper:Theaetetus: On the other hand, if you tell the bank robber where the bank is, where the guard is at what times, what the code to the safe is, how much cash they have on hand and how to avoid the dye packs, and you're telling him this with the intent that he go rob the bank, then yeah, you're going to be guilty of aiding him. You don't really think the guys who plan robberies walk away scot free because they didn't actually pull the heist, do you?

It's not always black and white like that. You can post instructions on the internet how to make a bomb. It's not illegal because you are not actually making a bomb. In fact laws that would prevent how to instructions like that tend to be defined very narrowly because otherwise they get torn down on 1st amendment grounds. In this example nobody is telling the bank robbers to rob the bank and giving them specific directions. All they are doing is saying the bank is on X street and throwing their hands in the air saying "what you do after that is none of my business".

That's the* distinction. If you do it with the intent that the other party commit the crime, then you're inducing the crime. In those cases where hyperlinks have been found to be copyright infringement, the person placing the link intended that people would follow it and engage in copyright infringement. It's not just saying "information is here, do what you will" but "hey, follow this link and download this movie," which is closer to the guy helping plan the heist but not participating.

*the other distinction is that, unlike a bank location, there aren't many legitimate reasons to be directing people to locations of torrent files for pirated movies. And since this is civil, rather than criminal, it's a much lower burden of proof on the copyright owner to show that the defendant was sending people to the link to engage in copyright infringement as opposed to, say, to perform critical reviews of the quality of web site design by pirates.

Theaetetus:That's the* distinction. If you do it with the intent that the other party commit the crime, then you're inducing the crime. In those cases where hyperlinks have been found to be copyright infringement, the person placing the link intended that people would follow it and engage in copyright infringement. It's not just saying "information is here, do what you will" but "hey, follow this link and download this movie," which is closer to the guy helping plan the heist but not participating.

*the other distinction is that, unlike a bank location, there aren't many legitimate reasons to be directing people to locations of torrent files for pirated movies. And since this is civil, rather than criminal, it's a much lower burden of proof on the copyright owner to show that the defendant was sending people to the link to engage in copyright infringement as opposed to, say, to perform critical reviews of the quality of web site design by pirates.

Sooooo, in this scenario would telling a guy who asks "where's the bank!?," "there's a bank over on the corner where you can make a withdraw of your money from your own accounts" would be roughly equivalent to telling the guy who asks where he can find a BD rip of Major Hollywood Movie 5, "here's a link where you can find a personal back-up copy of a piece of media you legitimately own a copy of?"

ProfessorOhki:Theaetetus: That's the* distinction. If you do it with the intent that the other party commit the crime, then you're inducing the crime. In those cases where hyperlinks have been found to be copyright infringement, the person placing the link intended that people would follow it and engage in copyright infringement. It's not just saying "information is here, do what you will" but "hey, follow this link and download this movie," which is closer to the guy helping plan the heist but not participating.

*the other distinction is that, unlike a bank location, there aren't many legitimate reasons to be directing people to locations of torrent files for pirated movies. And since this is civil, rather than criminal, it's a much lower burden of proof on the copyright owner to show that the defendant was sending people to the link to engage in copyright infringement as opposed to, say, to perform critical reviews of the quality of web site design by pirates.

Sooooo, in this scenario would telling a guy who asks "where's the bank!?," "there's a bank over on the corner where you can make a withdraw of your money from your own accounts" would be roughly equivalent to telling the guy who asks where he can find a BD rip of Major Hollywood Movie 5, "here's a link where you can find a personal back-up copy of a piece of media you legitimately own a copy of?"

Nope, because the rip is not lawfully distributed, and while there's an argument to be made that the guy is format-shifting-by-proxy and therefore not infringing, there's no argument that the person he's getting it from has a distribution right. Accordingly, he may be inducing the distributor to infringe, and you're inducing him to engage in contributory infringement.Specifically, rather than directing someone to the bank, you're directing them to the person who robbed the bank, and telling them to go get stolen loot from him. Maybe they've got an argument that they have some rights to that loot... but the robber doesn't have the right to give out stolen property and so by asking him to do so, they're intending that he break the law again.

ProfessorOhki:telling the guy who asks where he can find a BD rip of Major Hollywood Movie 5, "here's a link where you can find a personal back-up copy of a piece of media you legitimately own a copy of?"

See above:

Theaetetus:the other distinction is that, unlike a bank location, there aren't many legitimate reasons to be directing people to locations of torrent files for pirated movies. And since this is civil, rather than criminal, it's a much lower burden of proof on the copyright owner to show that the defendant was sending people to the link to engage in copyright infringement as opposed to, say, to perform critical reviews of the quality of web site design by pirates.

You can claim that you were only intending to give out the URL to people who were going to lawfully format shift, but the jury can judge the credibility of that claim, and if they find that you were more likely than not giving it out to people who were pirating the movie, you're liable. That tenuous excuse that may work to raise a reasonable doubt would be fine for a criminal charge, but it's not enough for a civil one.

Theaetetus:Nope, because the rip is not lawfully distributed, and while there's an argument to be made that the guy is format-shifting-by-proxy and therefore not infringing, there's no argument that the person he's getting it from has a distribution right. Accordingly, he may be inducing the distributor to infringe, and you're inducing him to engage in contributory infringement.Specifically, rather than directing someone to the bank, you're directing them to the person who robbed the bank, and telling them to go get stolen loot from him. Maybe they've got an argument that they have some rights to that loot... but the robber doesn't have the right to give out stolen property and so by asking him to do so, they're intending that he break the law again.

Interesting point. As long as we're beating this analogy to death: So I've got to wonder, some guy knocks off a bank and I watch him flee into an abandoned building across the street. Customer of the bank comes rushes out and asks me, "where's the thief who took my money?" I point him to the abandoned building.

Now, like you say, if the money was stolen from the bank, the customer doesn't have the right to demand it from the thief because, like you say, the thief can't distribute it. Now, if the customer receives stolen property from the thief; the customer's property, that is... what's my part in all of it?

/Then again, there's that whole other issue of them making legitimate format-shifting impossible by making the tools capable of executing said shift illegal.

ProfessorOhki:Theaetetus: Nope, because the rip is not lawfully distributed, and while there's an argument to be made that the guy is format-shifting-by-proxy and therefore not infringing, there's no argument that the person he's getting it from has a distribution right. Accordingly, he may be inducing the distributor to infringe, and you're inducing him to engage in contributory infringement.Specifically, rather than directing someone to the bank, you're directing them to the person who robbed the bank, and telling them to go get stolen loot from him. Maybe they've got an argument that they have some rights to that loot... but the robber doesn't have the right to give out stolen property and so by asking him to do so, they're intending that he break the law again.

Interesting point. As long as we're beating this analogy to death: So I've got to wonder, some guy knocks off a bank and I watch him flee into an abandoned building across the street. Customer of the bank comes rushes out and asks me, "where's the thief who took my money?" I point him to the abandoned building.

Now, like you say, if the money was stolen from the bank, the customer doesn't have the right to demand it from the thief because, like you say, the thief can't distribute it. Now, if the customer receives stolen property from the thief; the customer's property, that is... what's my part in all of it?

Yeah, this analogy is collapsing fast. Anyway, I think there'd be an argument that you aren't inducing it, since you may not be intending for the thief to distribute his stolen goods, but rather the customer to apprehend the thief.I suppose, if the thief ran past you and shouted "send anyone other than the bank who wants their money to me" (maybe he's an anti-Wall St. vigilante), then it could be argued that if you sent people to him, you're aiding him in his criminal scheme to rob the bank and distribute the assets to the account holders, which would make you liable.

Let's try again with a different analogy... Old man Johnson got a trampoline for his backyard, and while he's away on vacation, Evil Eddie found out about it and broke the lock on his fence, and told you. So you go around telling the neighborhood kids that Eddie had broken the lock and that they should all head there to bounce on the trampoline. Eddie is trespassing, and doesn't have a right to invite others. Now, if one of the kids who shows up is little Billy, whom Johnson had previously invited to bounce on his trampoline any time, Billy isn't trespassing... but that doesn't eliminate Eddie's liability for trespass, nor your liability for inducing others to do so. You're not liable for Billy's actions, but for Eddie's.

/Then again, there's that whole other issue of them making legitimate format-shifting impossible by making the tools capable of executing said shift illegal.

Referring to plot details is definitely not infringement of any sort. Persons who are admitted to a pre-release screening are often under NDA until the film's release date (or perhaps the week prior), but once the movie's out, anything's fair game.